Blue Spot

Chris Matthews Advised To Leave MSNBC And Begin Senate Campaign, Report Says | AHN | December 4, 2008

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - NBC anchor and pundit Chris Matthews has been advised to quit his post at the network and begin his campaign for senator of Pennsylvania, according to a report.

Speculation is rife that Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball," wants to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), one of the most senior members of the Senate, in 2010. The 62-year old political commentator has been advised to resign from NBC "as soon as possible" and enter the race in order to demonstrate that he is serious about his candidacy, Politico quotes some Democratic operatives.

But the report also quotes NBC sources as saying talk of a Matthews' run is a ploy to have leverage during negotiations when his contract expires in June.

Matthews last week met with Democratic State Committee Chairman T.J. Rooney and executive director Mary Isenhour in Washington, D.C. about a possible Senate bid, according to The Patriot-News. He is also said to be looking for a house in the Keystone state.

Matthews, whose journalistic career includes more than a decade working as Washington, D.C. bureau chief for the San Francisco Examiner and a David Brinkley Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism, has been accused of being biased and favoring then-Senator Barack Obama during the election.

He had repeatedly expressed admiration for Obama's speeches, famously describing the feeling he had during one of them by saying there was "a thrill going up my leg." During the protracted primary race between Obaman and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Matthews had to apologize to viewers and to the former first lady after he came under fire for saying Clinton's support was due to sympathy for her and her husband's infidelity.

Labels: Chris Matthews, Media bias, MSNC

Halperin at Politico/USC conf.: 'extreme pro-Obama' press bias - Alexander Burns - Politico.com

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

Halperin, who maintains Time's political site "The Page," cited two New York Times articles as examples of the divergent coverage of the two candidates.

"The example that I use, at the end of the campaign, was the two profiles that The New York Times ran of the potential first ladies," Halperin said. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious. It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it case her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

The story about Michelle Obama, by contrast, was "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is," according to Halperin.

The former ABC News political director acknowledged that some of the press coverage was simply reflecting the reality of Obama's presidential campaign.

"You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new."

New York magazine's John Heilemann, one of Halperin's co-panelists, offered another reason for all the positive press coverage Obama received.

"The biggest bias in the press is towards effectiveness," said Heilemann, who is authoring a book on the 2008 race along with Halperin.

"We love things that are smart."

Because Obama's campaign was generally so well run, he argued, the press tended to applaud even his negative tactics.

"We'll scold you for being negative," Heilemann said, "but if it seems to be working, the tone of your coverage becomes more positive."

Another of Halperin's fellow participants, Los Angeles Times writer Mark Barabak, disagreed more strongly with the Time writer's comments. Still, Halperin's general point met with little resistance

"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."

Labels: Media bias, Obama supporters

Gov. Palin goes back to work in Alaska and takes questions at an impromtu press conference about the campaign, the RNC wardrobe (which the media and most liberals can't get enough of) and returning to work. She calls the recent allegations "ridiculous" and untrue.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Media bias, sexism

The recent leaks by senior McCain aides regarding Gov. Palin just shows how much class and professionalism they lack. It's painfully obvious that they are now trying to cover their butts for their many mistakes during the campaign. It's too bad that an honorable man like McCain decided to seek council from idiots like these. Tonight CNN slammed these fools, and even Obama partisan Roland Martin got into the act. And once again, the so-called "mainstream media" do not lag too far behind when the discussion is about incompetence.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Media bias, personal attacks - mudslingling

Real Clear Politics - News - Elections 2008 - Opinion - Commentary - TIME

From a study by
the Project for Excellence in Journalism:

• MSNBC stood out for having less negative coverage of Obama than the press generally (14% of stories vs. 29% in the press overall) and for having more negative stories about McCain (73% of its coverage vs. 57% in the press overall).
• On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1.
• CNN fell distinctly in the middle of the three cable channels when it came to tone. In general, the tone of its coverage was closer than any other cable news channel to the press overall, though also somewhat more negative than the media overall.
• The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC's coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News.
• At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral—and also less negative—than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone. That might surprise some who imagined those morning programs were somehow easier on political figures. Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.

Just as I've been saying for months, we now have two major 24 hour cable "news" networks that are devoting most of their coverage to opinion (and a third not too far behind). MSNBC has become the left-wing version of Fox News Channel. This can't be to good for the country and can't possibly help Barack Obama with his promise to bring the country together. With the two networks feeding partisan vitriol to millions of listeners from both sides of the ideological spectrum, they are helping to perpetuate a culture of permanent campaigns causing even more extreme discourse and a more cynical populous.

Even pro-Obama media has noticed and criticized the left-wing turn that became very evident earlier this year. TNR writer, Isaac Chotiner, slammed the network back in May in a article titled, "Dangerous Liaison."

...the network's coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.

The problem here is that when supposedly "straight" news anchors phrase questions in leading ways, and report one campaign's spin as if it were fact, it distorts what is actually going on in the campaign--even for those of us who make a living obsessing over and writing about politics. And when anchormen themselves shill for Obama, the distinction between his talking points and the truth grows even blurrier still. So, as much as I find MSNBC entertaining, their creation of a parallel, pro-Obama universe is the type of thing I'd expect of Fox. That's when I know it's time to change the channel.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Fox propaganda, Media bias, MSNC, Olbermann

The Associated Press: McCain criticizes paper for not releasing tape

BOWLING GREEN, Ohio (AP) — Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin accused the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday of protecting Barack Obama by withholding a videotape of the Democrat attending a 2003 party with a Palestinian-American professor and critic of Israel.

McCain and Palin called Rashid Khalidi a former spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a characterization that Khalidi has denied in the past, and McCain said 1960s radical Bill Ayers had attended the same party. Both candidates said guests at the event made critical comments about Israel.

"Among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism rather than the victim," Palin said at a rally in Ohio. "What we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he professes to support."

In a story published last April, the Times said Obama spoke out at the event — a party for Khalidi — on the need for common ground on the Israel-Palestinian issue. Obama has said during the campaign that his commitment to Israel's security is "nonnegotiable."

The paper said it would not release the tape because of a promise made to the source who provided it.

"More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape," Jamie Gold, the newspaper's reader's representative, said in a statement. "The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."

McCain and Palin cited the paper's position as evidence of media bias. The Times has endorsed Obama's candidacy.

"If there was a tape of John McCain in a neo-Nazi outfit, I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different," McCain said in an interview with Hispanic radio stations.

Palin said the Times should win a Pulitzer Prize for "kowtowing."

Labels: Media bias

Sarah Palin says Gwen Ifill flap will just make her try harder | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Sarah Palin, showing that for all the grief she's taken of late, she definitely knows the role of a running mate -- was in sync with John McCain today when asked about the controversy surrounding journalist Gwen Ifill.

Ifill, as she did in 2004, will be asking the questions in Thursday's debate between the two major-party vice presidential nominees -- Palin and Joe Biden. But unlike four years ago, Ifill is writing a book in which the head of one of the national tickets -- in this case, Barack Obama -- figures prominently.

Some conservative leaders, bloggers and others have argued that by definition, Ifill can no longer claim neutrality as presides at the verbal fray.

McCain, though, cut Ifill some slack, telling Fox News earlier today that he considered her "a professional" who "will do a totally objective job... ."

Palin: You know, I'm not going to let it be a concern. Let me just tell you that John McCain has been in an underdog position before, and this ticket, I think it is safe to say, is in an underdog position. But that's what makes us work harder. It makes us want to communicate more clearly and profoundly with the electorate, letting them know what the contrasts are between these two tickets. It's motivating to me, even, to hear Gwen's comments there because, again, it makes us work that much harder, and it provides even more fairness and objectivity and choices for the voters on November 4, if we try that much harder.

Labels: Debates, Gov. Sarah Palin, Media bias

McCain Backers Lash Out at Media for Obama ‘Advocacy’ - America’s Election HQ

John McCain’s campaign and a supporter at a McCain rally separately accused the press of favoring Barack Obama on Monday, with McCain’s top strategist calling The New York Times a “pro-Obama advocacy organization.”

“Let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not — by any standard — a journalistic organization,” strategist Steve Schmidt told reporters on a conference call. “It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor [Sarah] Palin and excuses Senator Obama.”

Schmidt accused the Times of giving Obama a pass on his “deceitful ads” and abdicating its journalistic responsibility to vet Obama’s “background and past statements.” It was an unusually harsh critique for a campaign that last year enjoyed largely favorable press coverage.

Labels: McCain, Media bias, Obama supporters

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat - NYTimes.com

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”

But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.”

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. “MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict,” one senior staff member observed. “They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week.”

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair’s “SportsCenter”-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

But in the past two weeks, that line has been blurred. On the final night of the Republican convention, after MSNBC televised the party’s video “tribute to the victims of 9/11,” including graphic footage of the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Olbermann abruptly took off his journalistic hat.

“I’m sorry, it’s necessary to say this,” he began. After saying that the video had exploited the memories of the dead, he directly apologized to viewers who were offended. Then, sounding like a network executive, he said it was “probably not appropriate to be shown.”

Mr. Griffin, MSNBC’s president, denies that it has an ideology. “I think ideology means we think one way, and we don’t,” he said. Rather than label MSNBC’s prime time as left-leaning, he says it has passion and point of view.

But MSNBC is the cable arm of NBC News, the dispassionate news division of NBC Universal. MSNBC, “Today” and “NBC Nightly News” share some staff members, workspace and content. And some critics are claiming they also share a political affiliation.

The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin’s plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way — which MSNBC then reported.

“The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing,” said a senior MSNBC official. “We were told, ‘No, it’s not Sarah Palin and you don’t know who it is.’ ”

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of “NBC Nightly News,” have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had “gone too far” at times, but emphasized they were “not the only voices” on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.

Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann. “To go and tar the whole news network and Brokaw and Mitchell is grossly unfair,” he said, referring to the NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Some tensions have spilled out on-screen. On the first night in Denver, as the fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough talked about the resurgence of the McCain campaign, Mr. Olbermann dismissed it by saying: “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?”

The following night, Mr. Olbermann and his co-anchor for convention coverage, Mr. Matthews, had their own squabble after Mr. Olbermann observed that Mr. Matthews had talked too long.

Some staff members said the tension led to the network’s decision to keep Mr. Olbermann in New York for the Republican convention, after he ran the desk in Denver during the Democratic convention. MSNBC said that he stayed in New York to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav. But some workers say there were other reasons — namely, that Mr. Olbermann was concerned about his safety in St. Paul, given the loud crowds at MSNBC’s set in Denver.

NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled “Breaking News” asked: “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” Mr. Griffin called the graphic “an embarrassment.”

According to three staff members, Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal, and Steve Capus, president of NBC News, considered flying to the Republican convention in Minnesota last week to address the lingering tensions.

Labels: Chris Matthews, Clueless Pundits, Media bias, Olbermann

Bay Buchanan goes off on Campbell Brown
Video sent by marc1a

Bay Buchanan calls out Campbell Brown on CNN for their attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Media bias

Former Palin aide on plane controversy, troopergate
Video sent by marc1a

Wolf Blitzer talks to Gov. Palin's former aide, Meg Stapleton, about the recent controversy over the state plane that was sold and troopergate.

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Media bias

Take a look at the following headlines regarding Palin's experience. Hmmm...And there's no biases in the MSM right? Two totally different takes on the same data.

ABC News: Half View Palin Favorably - Real Clear Politics - Elections 2008 - TIME

Poll: Half say Palin isn't experienced enough to be president

Labels: Gov. Sarah Palin, Media bias

h/t NewHampster

The thought of Democrats "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" was finally put to rest in 2006. Or so we thought. Lately, the snarky liberals around the blogosphere at such classy sites like Daily Kos, are trying to prove they can still give elections away.

All the latest attacks aimed at McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin , are just serving to galvanize Republicans and I predict you will soon see many independents rallying around her.

Online communities such as Daily Kos, which was once a place where diversity was tolerated and was packed with thoughtful, objective, likable progressives, have become colonies for lewd, self-absorbed, mean-spirited, narcissists. They have adopted the tactics used by right-wing operatives and advocacy groups.

Everybody was happy to see the CNN show "Crossfire" finally put to rest. What we see online is a cyber version of this show. I realize that I have been part of the problem in the past and i vow to be more balanced in the future. I started doing this for myself, to document the abuses of the Bush administration and his cronies. But this hobby or for many, profession, has evolved into what Dick Meyer (Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium) calls a "permanent campaign."

The recent Democratic nomination process has highlighted some ugly facts about my party. Some will say and use the most vile and juvenile tactics to win. They will even attempt to destroy one of their own to get what they want and their friends in the MSM will co-operate (think Olbermann, Shuster, Matthews, Mitchell, Todd, Roland Martin, Brazille, Cooper). This is incredibly disappointing, and I will not support this.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Gov. Sarah Palin, Hillary-haters, Internet, Kos, Liberals, Media bias, Netroots, Obama, personal attacks - mudslingling, supporters

MSNBC's meltdown - War Room - Salon.com

Then came perhaps the biggest blowup of the entire week, a nearly 10-minute exchange Tuesday during which Scarborough and David Shuster yelled back and forth. Scarborough concluded the discussion by calling Shuster "Rip Van Shuster" and saying, "Shuster, I have no idea what you're talking about ... Have you been sleeping the past couple months? ... Do you never watch this show? ... You usually sleep through this show because you didn't show up three times in a row ... Somebody got into some bad acid at the protests and this conversation turned terribly wrong."

Not to be outdone, Chris Matthews then got into the act Tuesday. While House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer waited to be interviewed, first Matthews yelled to someone off-camera that he would "wrap in a second." Then, after Olbermann introduced Hoyer, Matthews went after his coanchor, saying, "You made that sound, Keith. I can do the same to you. That's what I thought and I said it."

Finally (at least for now), Wednesday night, after Republican pundit Mike Murphy opined that he believed Hillary Clinton would vote for John McCain, Olbermann said loudly, "Let's wrap him up, all right?"

Add to these incidents MSNBC's horrible decision to position its outdoor set in front of Denver's Union Station, so that both train whistles and screaming protesters frequently interrupt its broadcasts, and you have a television meltdown on your hands. And it comes at an awful time -- right in the middle of one of the network's most important spans of coverage for the entire year.

The Politico and the Wall Street Journal have documented the on-air grudge matches in articles over the past two days. The Politico quotes an anonymous "high-ranking MSNBC journalist" as saying, "The situation at our channel is about to blow up." And the Wall Street Journal quotes former MSNBC host and "CBS Evening News" coanchor Connie Chung, who said, "My reaction to that is: 'Grow up!' They have to just grow up."

Despite all the attention the spats have received in the media, however, MSNBC president Phil Griffin doesn't seem worried. "Look, I want honest, authentic people on our air. I don't want phonies. So if the price of that is every once in a while one of these bubbles up, I'm not concerned," he told the Wall Street Journal. And Griffin told the Politico that "this is our team. They've served us well. We love 'em, and we're going to be at the Republican convention, and it's going to be great. And I don't have any hesitation."

And what about MSNBC's ratings? While it has improved on the ratings front during the convention, it still trails CNN and Fox News overall for convention coverage.

Labels: Chris Matthews, Clueless Pundits, Joe Scarborough, Media, Media bias, Olbermann

Joe Scarborough leaves Keith Olbermann speechless after KO shows his bias and interupts Scarborough during his commentary.

h/t Larry Johnson

Labels: Joe Scarborough, Media bias, Olbermann

On tonight's Hardball, David Shuster showed us why MSNBC is quickly earning a reputation for being a left-wing version of the Fox News Channel. MSNBC has been quite hostile to Hillary Clinton and her supporters all throughout the campaign. Even Obama supporters have admitted that there is clearly a bias at the network and an obvious adoration of Sen. Obama.

Tonight Shuster did his best not to disappoint loyal Obama supporters by being completely hostile to Will Bower and PUMA Pac's Darragh Murphy. At different points in the interview, Shuster was either laughing at them or being extremely snarky. He sarcastically shot back at Murphy, "Alright let's vote against him because he was in Hawaii." When Bower pointed out Obama's flip-flopping, Shuster sharply defended him, "but that's the standard Will" and went on to list past McCain flip-flops. He clearly looked like an Obama surrogate and closed with an incredibly presumptuous statement for a reporter; "Well, I think most Democrats would disagree with you, and I think even most Republicans would disagree with you." What a pompous ass-hole.

Shuster continued his unfair attack by pointing out that PUMA has only raised $50k, as if that meant they did not have support. If they had no support, why have them on the show? Why so angry David? He clearly is unaware that PUMA is a grassroots effort and not some San Francisco millionaire's club.

Whether you're for Obama or not, you have to understand that MSNBC invited Bower and Murphy on the show. Since when did Hardball turn into The Bill O'Reilly Show? I think a little more objectivity was called for here. Of course, Shuster has always had an axe to grind against the Clinton's. Especially after getting suspended in February, 2007 for whining about the way Chelsea was being used during the campaign and complained that Hillary was "pimping out" Chelsea (as seen above). Classy, huh? So it's no wonder he seized on the opportunity to be totally hostile to Hillary supporters.

Labels: Hillary-haters, Media bias, PUMA

Are the media pro-Obama?

What is known is Obama has graced the covers of six editions of Newsweek in the past year versus two for McCain. What is known is that Obama has been on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine twice in the past year (McCain on the cover of Rolling Stone? Unthinkable!) The Project for Excellence in Journalism's weekly summary of media coverage for the week ending July 20th reported the following:

"Last week, Obama was a significant presence in 83 percent of campaign stories studied, vs. McCain in 52 percent. (To be a significant presence in a story, 25 percent of the story must be about that person.)"

Are the media, overall, in love with Obama? You betcha. Is he getting a pass in terms of negative media critiques? You betcha. Is that fair? Life is not fair, as we all know. But the only thing fair about the media's portrayal of the two presumptive party presidential nominees is that media bias may be starting to backfire.

In the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, 49 percent of voters told pollsters they believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44 percent a month earlier. In the same time period, the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking poll has McCain and Obama running neck and neck. A month ago Obama maintained a pretty consistent lead of five points, most of which has dwindled to nothing while perceptions of media bias rise.

Both candidates should be covered and reviewed in terms of their policies and on their ability to maintain consistent positions on issues while accurately recounting their records. Nothing more, nothing less. That is the type of coverage we should be viewing this campaign season, but it is not the coverage we are in fact receiving.

Labels: General Election 2008, Media bias

From John McCain's website, a contest is on for the best video that expresses the media's love affair with Obama. Above is the leading video.

Labels: Media bias, Obama supporters

Forty journalists paid $20,000 each to fly with Barack Obama during his tour of the Mideast. Meanwhile, John McCain was met by two journalists after arriving in New Hampshire. Katie Couric reports.

Labels: Media bias, Obama supporters

Has the Press Voted for Obama? - The Opinionator - Opinion - New York Times Blog When I first saw this title, my first reaction was, you gotta be kidding me, right? Really, the Times and the pollsters are just catching up to this now?

Plenty of Republicans think the news media is in the tank for Barack Obama, but a Rasmussen Reports survey found that plenty of other Americans agree: “49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago. Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.”

More interesting thoughts from a commenter going by the handle garychapelhill at the Confluence, a site for disaffected Democrats:
As might be expected an overwhelming number of Republicans see biased media coverage. They’ve been singing that tune for years. What is bad for Obama is that large numbers of Independents also feel like the media is in the tank for Obama. Even Democrats who think the press coverage of Obama is biased outnumber those who think they are biased towards McCain …

Slightly less than half (45%) believe that reporters would actually lie to protect a candidate they support, and 50% say that they are trying to make the economy seem worse than it really is (which woud presumably help an Obama candidacy).

There are other disturbing trends for the Obamaphiles (although you wouldn’t know it from the glowing press coverage–guess the people surveyed above aren’t as “low information” as the elitist OFB would have us beleive). Obama continues to slip in the daily presidential tracking poll. In fact he is at his lowest since Hillary dropped out. I guess without her to kick around anymore, people are actually forced to take a closer look at him. Obots have been telling us that Obama’s latest slide to the right is just his way of pandering to a broader electorate–he’s just a politician after all–but the polls indicate that’s not working out so well for him.

Labels: Media bias

Netroots Try to Label Fox News as Opinion - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

It may be the blogosphere’s equivalent of the scarlet letter, and the organizers of Netroots Nation, a gathering of liberal bloggers that is taking place this week, say they will be more than happy to pin it on Fox News.

Planners of the conference want to force representatives of the cable news network to wear credentials identifying them as opinion media rather than providing them with the regular press passes other news outlets will receive.

“Fox News calls itself fair and balanced, but it’s not,” Josh Orton, political director for Netroots said in an interview. He accused the network, which is popular among conservatives, of misrepresenting itself.
The Netroots, however, may not get their way.

A spokeswoman for Fox News said the network would not be sending anyone to cover the four-day conference that kicked off in Austin, Texas, on Thursday.

But if anyone from the network shows up, Mr. Orton said they would have to wear a press pass with the words “Opinion Media” printed on it. The credential would not restrict Fox’s ability to cover the conference, but Mr. Orton said that journalists from other media organizations like Air America, the liberal radio network, and the National Review, a conservative journal, would receive regular credentials. The difference, Mr. Orton said, is that those outlets are “explicitly progressive or explicitly conservative. They don’t have a branding problem.”

Fox News has long been a lightning rod for liberal criticism, especially in the opinion-charged world of blogs, and the move by organizers to, as they put it, re-brand Fox News is just another sign of continuing friction. The idea to label Fox journalists as opinion media is, in fact, not a new one. It’s been tossed around on blogs, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann also floated the idea on his show last summer.

Labels: Fox propaganda, Media, Media bias, Netroots, Olbermann

After putting up with Rachel Maddow tag teaming with Eugene Robinson and Olbermann to fawn over Obama for over a year, it gives me great pleasure to see her get beat up by three conservatives here. I only hope there's more to come, but I only know from clips like these since I don't watch the network any longer.

Labels: Iraq War, Media bias, Obama

McCain campaign gets greedy - War Room - Salon.com

With the assistance of a press corps willing to play along, the McCain campaign scored a hit Monday, feigning outrage and manufacturing a controversy out of Wesley Clark's questions on John McCain's presidential qualifications. It involved twisting the words of a four-star general a bit, and a pliant press corps willing to redefine the word "attack," but the McCain/GOP spin machine was in high dudgeon and it got precisely the result it was looking for.

Labels: General Election 2008, McCain, Media, Media bias, Obama supporters

Labels: Hillary-haters, Media, Media bias, sexism

Get used to saying it because the Democrats have just chosen the wrong nominee. Obama will not win in November. Not unless him and his supporters do some major damage control with Clinton supporters, which would mean reaching out to them in a way they seem incapable of.

The Obama supporters who think Clinton played dirty, haven't seen anything yet. Obama's empty record will finally be in the spotlight. He will have to be much clearer on how he intends to bring change, especially to the voters in middle and rural America. He will now have to puth forth credible, detailed plans rather than rely on lofty themes and buzz words. Good plans, what a concept!

There are already millions of Clinton supporters who have vowed not to vote for Obama. Some of them will not vote for him even if Hillary is on the ticket. There has been too much damage done by his surrogates, his supporters, the media and himself. Obama has a lot of work to do to win over Clinton's army. Whatever he does now will probably be received as disingenuous and way too late.

McCain has some work to do as well. If he can recapture the same spirit of his 2000 campaign then it will be no contest. This is doubtful. He's alligned himself to Bush way too many times since then. However, if he can win over many of Clinton's supporters and enough of the more conservative independents, he will be our next president.

If Hillary is picked as Obama's running mate, then it's hard to see how he loses. However, I hope to God she doesn't choose to go this route if she is offered the spot. I think there are better opportunities ahead for her, and she would be far more effective in a different role.

So for all the pundits and Obama supporters trashing Hillary for not conceding tonight, I say, fuck off already and get used to saying it, "President McCain."

Labels: Election 2008, Hillary, Hillary-haters, McCain, Media, Media bias, Obama, Obama supporters

Labels: Election 2008, Hillary-haters, Media, Media bias, sexism

Dangerous Liaison Even Obama supporters admit there's a pro-Obama bias at MSNBC. Their reputation is finally becoming mainstream.

And this was only the latest example of the network's undeniable Obama favoritism. David Shuster's comment about the Clintons' "pimping out" their daughter, Chelsea, was clearly boneheaded, but, as Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed out, it caused such a stir among Clintonites because it highlighted the rest of the network's anti-Hillary coverage. Now, that's not to say that their slant has been bad for business; to the contrary. And it has certainly made for some enjoyable television--Matthews is often supremely engaging (who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a "thrill going up my leg"), and however withering he can be, Olbermann is frequently hilarious. But the network's coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.


In fact, MSNBC's bias has actually hurt the Illinois senator. After all, it was the Obama cheerleading from MSNBC (among others) that helped lead to Clinton's New Hampshire comeback. And even if you think (as I do) that the Clintons have made too big of a deal out of the "sexist" and "unfair" portrayal their candidate has received in the press, if you watch enough MSNBC, you realize that their claim isn't without truth. How could you believe otherwise when Olbermann, with his trademark hauteur, told Hillary that "voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth [of the campaign]," or when Matthews took such self-evident glee in trouncing Clinton in between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary? Similarly now, by mocking Clinton's decision to stay in the race, Olbermann has only bolstered her argument that "the boys" are trying to push her out. And finally, on a number of primary nights, but most notably in Pennsylvania and Ohio/Texas, MSNBC has become so excited by early exit polls that it has raised expectations that Obama ultimately could not live up to.

The problem here is that when supposedly "straight" news anchors phrase questions in leading ways, and report one campaign's spin as if it were fact, it distorts what is actually going on in the campaign--even for those of us who make a living obsessing over and writing about politics. And when anchormen themselves shill for Obama, the distinction between his talking points and the truth grows even blurrier still. So, as much as I find MSNBC entertaining, their creation of a parallel, pro-Obama universe is the type of thing I'd expect of Fox. That's when I know it's time to change the channel.

Isaac Chotiner is a frequent contributor to The New Republic.

Labels: Election 2008, Hillary-haters, Media, Media bias, Obama supporters

Labels: Election 2008, Hillary-haters, Media, Media bias, Obama supporters, sexism

I'm looking at my Google page and this is about the only story on the page that is not bashing Hillary and actually takes the time to put things in their proper perspective.

I'm looking at a tvr'd "Meet the Press" right now and the Hillary bashing continues with a panel basically dedicating this episode as a "How Hillary Lost" show. There's Maureen Dowd telling us that the calls of sexism by the Hillary side are "poppycock;" Doris Kearns Goodwin ending a thought with "or God forbid what this thought suggested." The only moderate voice seemed to come from Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post who said she "would differ a little bit from some of the people around the table who thought this was intentional."

If you go to the page of the TPM YouTube video, you will see the most hateful, vitriolic, vile comments against Hillary to date. It's so obvious that the Obama side, who is fixated on thrusting the final dagger in the Clinton campaign, is not interested in anything the Clinton supporters have to bring to party. They really feel they can win without us. For me, this weekend is the final straw. I've finally decided that I will not be voting for Obama if he is the nominee. I've been on the fence for quite a while on what to to if he was the nominee, but the Obama side and the media have, just pushed me over. I'm still not sure if I can find myself voting for a Republican but I will either be staying home or writing in Hillary's name if she is not the nominee.

The consequences could be stark if McCain wins. However, in the case Hillary is not the nominee, I think it would be better to lose the presidency than to lend legitimacy to the wing of this party that finds it OK to disenfranchise millions of voters to win, and finds it OK to use a sexist, biased media as a weapon against a fellow Dem. They apparently are OK with swift-boating fellow Dems and the left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, with their juvenile, vile community, is OK with not only lifting their preferred candidate but destroying the opposing Democrat. The left-wing blogoshere, which has spent the last eight years complaining about right-wing tactics, is guilty of behaving in the same manner. For those of you who will no doubt point to NO QUARTER, I say that this is just one site who is just reacting to these tactics and their resentment stems from, to a large degree, the lack of substance from Obama and the vitriolic attacks of his supporters toward Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Most of this is defensive as opposed to what Obama supporters have managed to do, destroy the the original "inevitable" candidate.

I'm not OK with being forced to follow the "it" crowd; a fashion statement. I'd rather lose and pick my battles with McCain than be told to follow a candidate or face "race riots" as Michelle Bernard said on MSNBC on 5/19/08. I'm not OK with being told I'm a racist because I'm not following the "black candidate" after it took months for that community to even consider him black.

I'm not OK with the media choosing our candidate. I'm not OK with Donna Brazile asking me for money on behalf of the party, when she's done her best to promote her candidate with her "undeclared" support, while also, doing her best to "send a message" and make sure Florida voters pay the maximum price for what Florida Republican politicians created.

This party, which started this campaign with an embarrassment of riches, has exposed their sores and is now infected.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Hillary-haters, McCain, Media bias, Obama, Obama supporters, sexism

Media hype: How small stories become big news - John F. Harris - Politico.com

The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.

Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper.

Trivial stories—the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top—can dominate the campaign narrative for days.

Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets?

Actually, I have gotten pretty good at guessing which ones will. So have many of my colleagues and a generation of political operatives.

This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child—overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.

The truth about what Clinton said—and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant—was entirely beside the point.

Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than in being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of the New York Times, was the lead story of the Washington Post, and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I’d get to be the nominee after all.”

It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.”

It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader’s executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.”

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Hillary-haters, Media, Media bias, Obama supporters

New Statesman - Hating Hilary

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Labels: Election 2008, Hillary-haters, Media bias, sexism

Clinton Ad Casts Pundits As Out of Touch - From The Road

LOS ANGELES -- Hillary Clinton released a new ad in Oregon today that casts political pundits as out of touch with what voters in that state care about.

The ad, entitled “What’s Right,” suggests that voters should ignore “pundits in Washington” and shows video of ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Tim Russert.

“In Washington, they talk about who's up and who's down,” the ad’s announcer says. “In Oregon, we care about what's right and what's wrong.”

The ad goes on to list Clinton’s proposals to end No Child Left Behind, create a universal healthcare system, and says she opposed a Bush energy bill to control liquefied gas sites on Oregon’s coast.

The ad highlights a frustration the Clinton campaign is suffering from as they try to continue to gain support through the six primaries running up to June 3rd – the date through which she has vowed to stay in the race. The Clinton campaign has become increasingly aggravated with members of the media who deduce that she has little chance of regaining her lead in the delegate count and pulling ahead of Senator Obama.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Media bias

I can't remember a time I ever agreed with Cokie Roberts, but this week on "This Week" she actually made some sense. Here she is blasting the media for the "blantant sexism" they have shown throughout their coverage of the election.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Media bias, sexism

The Campaign Spot on National Review Online
So now that Obama sees the finish line, the media is lining up right behind him trying to push him forward. As if winning the nomination will automatically get him in the White House. Why even bother with a general election in November? The media has already determined the winner.

...you would think their readers might deserve to know what prompted McCain's campaign to suggest that Obama is the candidate of Hamas, i.e., top Hamas
political adviser Ahmed Yousef saying the terrorist group supports Obama’s
foreign-policy vision and hopes he wins:

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not
with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

I mean, seriously, one of his advisers, Rob Malley, was holding meetings with Hamas, and Obama's promised to hold unconditional face-to-face presidential summits with
the guy who's funding and encouraging Hamas.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Media bias, Obama, Terrorism

I don't usually find myself agreeing with Leslie Sanchez, but tonight she made some sense. Here she is taking on 2 Dems on how Obama has benefitted from a very generous press. TNR's Michael Crowley, regurgitates the usual Obama talking points. Dem strategist Keith Boykins is his tag-team partner here.

Labels: Election 2008, McCain, Media, Media bias, Obama

It's startling how biased the CNN coverage has been tonight. I know this is nothing new, but tonight CNN has been especially disgusting. It's like watching a panel of juvenile DKos bloggers. From Anderson Cooper ridiculing Lanny Davis to Jamaal Simmons joking about Florida and Michigan, to Toobin's snarky attacks, even questioning whether Hillary actually raised $10 million after the PA victory. Clinton support was limited to Begala and Lanny Davis, who both got limited time to speak.

I think it's time we force CNN to label Brazille and Martin as Obama supporters. Even Campbell Brown called Brazille out tonight for her obvious bias. Here's an interesting and testy exchange between Begala, an admitted Clinton supporter, and closet Obama supporter, Donna Brazille. Begala took exception to Brazille's continual defense of Obama and her insinuation that Obama is more able to bring people together, thus ignoring Clinton's coalitions.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Media, Media bias